9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?

[F4Jock]

Taking that poll on Godlike is about as meaningful as taking a poll of folks with dogs entered in Westminster about the number of dogs they own, or asking a group of folks at the Republican convention who they intend to vote for.

It is a waste of electrons.

The problem with trying to use a poll, ANY poll ANYWHERE to "prove" things like this is that it will never come out 100% in any one direction. If you look back in this thread you'll find that the preponderance of those with actual, retail flying experience, even a few 6 7 bus drivers, say it is highly probable that the hijackers could have done what they did. This, however, has not served to convince the main contra-factual theorist(s) holding opposite opinions. It never will. Thus, as you said, it's a waste of electrons.

I've done a bit of research re talking to conspiracy theorists. Essentially we can key until our fingers fall off, cite experience and facts until the cows come home and those holding what can be characterized as "fringe" opinions (Sorry George) cannot and will not ever be convinced that they are wrong on ANY given subject. Note as well that when asked direct questions or asked to provide facts to support their positions and disprove the "accepted" explanations for various acts they divert by restating their positions, stating that all they want are "facts" (Conveniently ignoring all of those presented to date possibly because there may have been one dissenting opinion.) flat out ignore questions asked of them and / or answer our questions with questions.

When I worked in the Far East I found that in engineering meetings with various nationals, when a question was asked and the answer given was not what they wanted to hear they tended to ignore the answer and explanations and ask the question over and over, sometimes in other contexts, until they either got the answer they wanted or the meeting ended.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

 

[Agav8r]

I always made it very clear I had no experience; however, when people hold themselves out as an experienced pilot or anything else . . . how is a layman supposed to evaluate their testimony . . . ? I have no reason to believe either side of the debate is lying or dishonest . . . I am simply in a quest for what makes the most sense . . .

Hi George, new member, but I wanted to say that I can completely empathize with your position. As someone not from an engineering or physics background, I too have to rely on the testimony of people with knowledge in such areas. It can be hard to determine who is and who is not blowing smoke when you have no frame of reference. It can take time, and that's ok. On the other hand, when it comes to the aircraft discussion and the qualifications of the hijackers, etc., it is often very easy for me as a holder of a commercial airman's certificate to pick out what is bunk and what is not. The key, in my opinion, is to develop your knowledge, then take what you know and determine how that relates to what people are saying about the other subject and how it relates to the area that you do know. I am more or less about as qualified as the 9/11 hijacker pilots. Commercial, SEL, instrument rated (but not current). The differences are that they all had varying amounts of large aircraft sim time, whereas I have zero sim or actual stick time in a large, multi engine aircraft. On the other hand, I have a significantly higher number of total hours, but all in single engine aircraft. It is my sincerest opinion that if given 1 hour of cockpit familiarization time in a 767 with a qualified pilot where I could dictate the questions I asked, learning the systems I wanted to learn, ignoring that which I didn't, I would acquire enough knowledge to be able to execute any of the 3 successful flights that the hijackers flew that day. I believe it has been satisfactorily established that the 9/11 hijacker pilots had significantly more large aircraft training than what I am asking for. I understand that this is all just opinion on my part, but opinion based on a strong foundation of knowledge. Not trying to sway You, George, just offering one more opinion of a pilot, which is what You said You were looking for.

 

[Agav8r]

About where I put A-4 and A-1 drivers. Anyone who comes back with foliage in their teeth needs some serious help! *grin*

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

That's good company. I like it.

 

[F4Jock]

Hi George, new member, but I wanted to say that I can completely empathize with your position. As someone not from an engineering or physics background, I too have to rely on the testimony of people with knowledge in such areas. It can be hard to determine who is and who is not blowing smoke when you have no frame of reference. It can take time, and that's ok. On the other hand, when it comes to the aircraft discussion and the qualifications of the hijackers, etc., it is often very easy for me as a holder of a commercial airman's certificate to pick out what is bunk and what is not. The key, in my opinion, is to develop your knowledge, then take what you know and determine how that relates to what people are saying about the other subject and how it relates to the area that you do know. I am more or less about as qualified as the 9/11 hijacker pilots. Commercial, SEL, instrument rated (but not current). The differences are that they all had varying amounts of large aircraft sim time, whereas I have zero sim or actual stick time in a large, multi engine aircraft. On the other hand, I have a significantly higher number of total hours, but all in single engine aircraft. It is my sincerest opinion that if given 1 hour of cockpit familiarization time in a 767 with a qualified pilot where I could dictate the questions I asked, learning the systems I wanted to learn, ignoring that which I didn't, I would acquire enough knowledge to be able to execute any of the 3 successful flights that the hijackers flew that day. I believe it has been satisfactorily established that the 9/11 hijacker pilots had significantly more large aircraft training than what I am asking for. I understand that this is all just opinion on my part, but opinion based on a strong foundation of knowledge. Not trying to sway You, George, just offering one more opinion of a pilot, which is what You said You were looking for.

Bless You!!!

 

[George B]

Hi George, new member, but I wanted to say that I can completely empathize with your position. As someone not from an engineering or physics background, I too have to rely on the testimony of people with knowledge in such areas. It can be hard to determine who is and who is not blowing smoke when you have no frame of reference. It can take time, and that's ok. On the other hand, when it comes to the aircraft discussion and the qualifications of the hijackers, etc., it is often very easy for me as a holder of a commercial airman's certificate to pick out what is bunk and what is not. The key, in my opinion, is to develop your knowledge, then take what you know and determine how that relates to what people are saying about the other subject and how it relates to the area that you do know. I am more or less about as qualified as the 9/11 hijacker pilots. Commercial, SEL, instrument rated (but not current). The differences are that they all had varying amounts of large aircraft sim time, whereas I have zero sim or actual stick time in a large, multi engine aircraft. On the other hand, I have a significantly higher number of total hours, but all in single engine aircraft. It is my sincerest opinion that if given 1 hour of cockpit familiarization time in a 767 with a qualified pilot where I could dictate the questions I asked, learning the systems I wanted to learn, ignoring that which I didn't, I would acquire enough knowledge to be able to execute any of the 3 successful flights that the hijackers flew that day. I believe it has been satisfactorily established that the 9/11 hijacker pilots had significantly more large aircraft training than what I am asking for. I understand that this is all just opinion on my part, but opinion based on a strong foundation of knowledge. Not trying to sway You, George, just offering one more opinion of a pilot, which is what You said You were looking for.

Thanks! I appreciate your comments . . . I accept them as your honest opinion . . . if your comments were the only ones I had heard and read I would probably not have a dilemma . . . since others have said otherwise . . . I am still gathering opinions and information . . .

 

[George B]

The problem with trying to use a poll, ANY poll ANYWHERE to "prove" things like this is that it will never come out 100% in any one direction. If you look back in this thread you'll find that the preponderance of those with actual, retail flying experience, even a few 6 7 bus drivers, say it is highly probable that the hijackers could have done what they did. This, however, has not served to convince the main contra-factual theorist(s) holding opposite opinions. It never will. Thus, as you said, it's a waste of electrons.

I've done a bit of research re talking to conspiracy theorists. Essentially we can key until our fingers fall off, cite experience and facts until the cows come home and those holding what can be characterized as "fringe" opinions (Sorry George) cannot and will not ever be convinced that they are wrong on ANY given subject. Note as well that when asked direct questions or asked to provide facts to support their positions and disprove the "accepted" explanations for various acts they divert by restating their positions, stating that all they want are "facts" (Conveniently ignoring all of those presented to date possibly because there may have been one dissenting opinion.) flat out ignore questions asked of them and / or answer our questions with questions.

When I worked in the Far East I found that in engineering meetings with various nationals, when a question was asked and the answer given was not what they wanted to hear they tended to ignore the answer and explanations and ask the question over and over, sometimes in other contexts, until they either got the answer they wanted or the meeting ended.

Does this sound at all familiar?

Keep 'em level!

F4Jock

Hmmmm . . . you would want people to be swayed by the last passionate person to tell them they were right . . . you are correct I seldom have ever believed anyone the first time I got briefed about anything . . . I couldn't . . . if I did I probably would have been fired the first week on any job I ever had . . .

 

[F4Jock]

Hmmmm . . . you would want people to be swayed by the last passionate person to tell them they were right . . . you are correct I seldom have ever believed anyone the first time I got briefed about anything . . . I couldn't . . . if I did I probably would have been fired the first week on any job I ever had . . .

Passionate arguments are for politicians. I'm an engineer X 2. I believe in facts. ("Just the facts m'am." as Jack Webb used to say.) In order to create or change my opinions I require facts; knowledge or occurrences based on PROVABLE (Caps mine) information or experience; mine or others. Conjecture is interesting. It engenders lots of interesting conversation over a few beers, but while I believe in ETs no one has proven to me that they actually exist (Apologies to George Noory and Art Bell.)Can we perhaps agree to disagree and move on?

 

[George B]

Passionate arguments are for politicians. I'm an engineer X 2. I believe in facts. ("Just the facts m'am." as Jack Webb used to say.) In order to create or change my opinions I require facts; knowledge or occurrences based on PROVABLE (Caps mine) information or experience; mine or others. Conjecture is interesting. It engenders lots of interesting conversation over a few beers, but while I believe in ETs no one has proven to me that they actually exist (Apologies to George Noory and Art Bell.)Can we perhaps agree to disagree and move on?

Then there is the rub . . . you start with the premise the 911 pilots could have accomplished their mission 3 for 3 without much difficulty and there is no other reasonable explanation . . . therefore, much evidence has to be presented to change your mind . . . I on the other hand hold the opposite position . . . I find it very hard to accept your premise based on the testimony from other experienced pilots saying your premise is not true . . . I however, require less evidence to change my mind . . . I only require a reasonably significant Poll of commercial pilots where the clear majority agrees with your position and/or a demonstration of 757/767 flying at 500 plus mph at 1,000 feet above ground level between two light or laser markers demonstrating their ability to hit their target at least 4 out of 5 times . . . and yes we can agree to disagree . . .

 

[F4Jock]

Then there is the rub . . . you start with the premise the 911 pilots could have accomplished their mission 3 for 3 without much difficulty and there is no other reasonable explanation . . . therefore, much evidence has to be presented to change your mind . . . I on the other hand hold the opposite position . . . I find it very hard to accept your premise based on the testimony from other experienced pilots saying your premise is not true . . . I however, require less evidence to change my mind . . . I only require a reasonably significant Poll of commercial pilots where the clear majority agrees with your position and/or a demonstration of 757/767 flying at 500 plus mph at 1,000 feet above ground level between two light or laser markers demonstrating their ability to hit their target at least 4 out of 5 times . . . and yes we can agree to disagree . . .

How may "Other Experienced Pilots" have stated this? Hans Krohn, a die-hard flight simulator fanatic, decided to put the question, “Does flight simulation prepare us for flying a real plane?” to a real test. In an article he wrote for FlightSim.com, he detailed how he approached a commercial flight simulation company to find out if his home computer skills would help to fly a real Boeing 737.
He found a German company that offered training in a 737-NG simulator near the Berlin airport. He booked a one-hour session but had to schedule it four weeks off. On the big day, he met his flight instructor, a retired 747 pilot.
The instructor explained that the 737-NG simulator they would be using was a combined effort between Boeing, Thales and General Electric. At a cost of over $20 million, it was roughly one-third the price of the real plane. He said GE guarantees them that the simulator can do everything the real plane was capable of, and vice versa.

A full size 737NG flight simulator.

At first, Krohn was nervous because while the instruments were more or less the same as at home, they looked very different--their positioning was off. He said,

As my eyes darted around in the cockpit, trying to find familiar reference points, a rather worrisome feeling of disorientation started to creep up my spine. I realized this cockpit was an alien environment for me, despite all my preparation!
​

He relaxed as the session went on. For the next hour, Krohn flew a total of eight times, from good-weather landings at Frankfurt Rhein-Main to crosswind landings at tricky airports like Innsbruck and Malta. Some of the differences to his home setup were immediate, like using a yoke instead of a joystick. However, he was able to make eight landings with no crashes. Each time he learned to make little adjustments like starting flaring a little earlier than he had at first.
Excited by the experience, he booked another session for a complete flight from Innsbruck to Munich. So, did he find the answer to The Question- do flight simulators prepare pilots for real world aircraft? “For me it has, beyond any doubt,” he said. He said if he is ever on a commercial 737 flight experiencing an emergency and the crew asks if anyone can land the plane, he will raise his hand!


Read more: http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4...prepare-pilots-for-flying-real/#ixzz2PzVZDW42

 

[George B]

How may "Other Experienced Pilots" have stated this? Hans Krohn, a die-hard flight simulator fanatic, decided to put the question, “Does flight simulation prepare us for flying a real plane?” to a real test. In an article he wrote for FlightSim.com, he detailed how he approached a commercial flight simulation company to find out if his home computer skills would help to fly a real Boeing 737.
He found a German company that offered training in a 737-NG simulator near the Berlin airport. He booked a one-hour session but had to schedule it four weeks off. On the big day, he met his flight instructor, a retired 747 pilot.
The instructor explained that the 737-NG simulator they would be using was a combined effort between Boeing, Thales and General Electric. At a cost of over $20 million, it was roughly one-third the price of the real plane. He said GE guarantees them that the simulator can do everything the real plane was capable of, and vice versa.

A full size 737NG flight simulator.

At first, Krohn was nervous because while the instruments were more or less the same as at home, they looked very different--their positioning was off. He said,

As my eyes darted around in the cockpit, trying to find familiar reference points, a rather worrisome feeling of disorientation started to creep up my spine. I realized this cockpit was an alien environment for me, despite all my preparation!
​

He relaxed as the session went on. For the next hour, Krohn flew a total of eight times, from good-weather landings at Frankfurt Rhein-Main to crosswind landings at tricky airports like Innsbruck and Malta. Some of the differences to his home setup were immediate, like using a yoke instead of a joystick. However, he was able to make eight landings with no crashes. Each time he learned to make little adjustments like starting flaring a little earlier than he had at first.
Excited by the experience, he booked another session for a complete flight from Innsbruck to Munich. So, did he find the answer to The Question- do flight simulators prepare pilots for real world aircraft? “For me it has, beyond any doubt,” he said. He said if he is ever on a commercial 737 flight experiencing an emergency and the crew asks if anyone can land the plane, he will raise his hand!


Read more: http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4...prepare-pilots-for-flying-real/#ixzz2PzVZDW42

This is good . . .however, landing an aircraft at slow speeds is not the same thing as hitting a 120 plus foot wide target at 500 mph, 1,000 feet above ground level . . . some have said it is easier . . . I don't have evidence of that fact . . .

 

[SR1419]

Then there is the rub . . . you start with the premise the 911 pilots could have accomplished their mission 3 for 3 without much difficulty and there is no other reasonable explanation . . .

But it wasn't 3 for 3- it was 3 for 4 and the 4th plane clearly had "much difficulty".

 

[George B]

But it wasn't 3 for 3- it was 3 for 4 and the 4th plane clearly had "much difficulty".

I don't think the downed aircraft in Pennsylvania qualifies . . . it never got to target . . . its pilot's ability to put his aircraft on target due to the pilot's skill was not tested . . . if we are to believe the story about its downing . . .

 

[F4Jock]

This is good . . .however, landing an aircraft at slow speeds is not the same thing as hitting a 120 plus foot wide target at 500 mph, 1,000 feet above ground level . . . some have said it is easier . . . I don't have evidence of that fact . . .

The towers were over 200 feet wide as I remember, and actually it's easy. Analogy: Place a construction barrel in a BIG parking lot. Now drive at it from as far off as you can see it and as fast as you (practically) can. As you get closer you have to correct LESS not more in order to hit it because you've made your gross corrections from way out. OK, I know, you only have two dimensions to worry about not three, but once again I urge you to take just one flying lesson and then tell us how hard it is to line up on a runway as a total first dollar rider.

 

[Cairenn]

I have always understood that Landing was the really hard part of a flight. That is when more things can go wrong, and little things can be disastrous. That be biased, because my hubby crashed a small plane when he was soloing---he survived without major injuries.

 

[George B]

The towers were over 200 feet wide as I remember, and actually it's easy. Analogy: Place a construction barrel in a BIG parking lot. Now drive at it from as far off as you can see it and as fast as you (practically) can. As you get closer you have to correct LESS not more in order to hit it because you've made your gross corrections from way out. OK, I know, you only have two dimensions to worry about not three, but once again I urge you to take just one flying lesson and then tell us how hard it is to line up on a runway as a total first dollar rider.

Dutch roll is not a factor?

 

[Mick West]

The towers were over 200 feet wide as I remember, and actually it's easy. Analogy: Place a construction barrel in a BIG parking lot. Now drive at it from as far off as you can see it and as fast as you (practically) can. As you get closer you have to correct LESS not more in order to hit it because you've made your gross corrections from way out. OK, I know, you only have two dimensions to worry about not three, but once again I urge you to take just one flying lesson and then tell us how hard it is to line up on a runway as a total first dollar rider.

And lining up with a runway is actually a lot harder than lining up with a tower, as with a runway you have to be on the line. With a tower you can be on any line you like.

To extend the parking lot analogy, a runway would be like a shipping container that you have to drive straight into through the open doors at one end.

 

[F4Jock]

I have always understood that Landing was the really hard part of a flight. That is when more things can go wrong, and little things can be disastrous. That be biased, because my hubby crashed a small plane when he was soloing---he survived without major injuries.

Very true BUT remember, the hijacker pilots weren't trying to land, they were trying to hit a rather large target, a target lots bigger than the threshold of a runway. They didn't have to flare, they didn't need to worry about flaps, slats, gear, angle of descent, airspeed, attitude, pitch, roll or yaw. All they needed to do was HIT!

 

[F4Jock]

Dutch roll is not a factor?

In these circumstances no. Please see my post above. Oh and . . . . . http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2307-Dutch-Rolls&

 

[F4Jock]

And lining up with a runway is actually a lot harder than lining up with a tower, as with a runway you have to be on the line. With a tower you can be on any line you like.

To extend the parking lot analogy, a runway would be like a shipping container that you have to drive straight into through the open doors at one end.

At speed. Correct. And in the second case all you have to do is hit the thing no matter where, no matter how hard. Faster is better but just hit and you win.

 

[George B]

At speed. Correct. And in the second case all you have to do is hit the thing no matter where, no matter how hard. Faster is better but just hit and you win.

If it is so easy to do. . . why doesn't someone show up those stupid Truthers and especially those misleading and dilusional experienced pilots by a simple demonstration. . . .? You wouldn't even have to use a 757 or 767. . . heck use an old 747, etc. . .fly it at 500 mph at 2,000 feet to give a little more margin for safety between light beams, lasers or two tethered weather balloons 200 feet apart. . . .I would think NIST, National Geographic or Mythbusters would gain an enormous audience of people wanting to see that demonstrated once and for all ??

 

[Cairenn]

Maybe because it would be a waste of money? Just to 'prove' to a few folks that will then find a fault with the test.

I think the money would be better spent, keeping the towers at smaller airports open.

 

[F4Jock]

If it is so easy to do. . . why doesn't someone show up those stupid Truthers and especially those misleading and dilusional experienced pilots by a simple demonstration. . . .? You wouldn't even have to use a 757 or 767. . . heck use an old 747, etc. . .fly it at 500 mph at 2,000 feet to give a little more margin for safety between light beams, lasers or two tethered weather balloons 200 feet apart. . . .I would think NIST, National Geographic or Mythbusters would gain an enormous audience of people wanting to see that demonstrated once and for all ??

If I may hazard a guess it's probably because most "rational" people consider it fruitless. Do that and experience indicates you'll only get more denials and equivocation. You've thus wasted a bundle of money and proven???? In that vein may I ask if you've ever come across a "true believer" who has had their mind changed? But you raise an interesting point about NIST, National Geographic and Mythbusters. Have you suggested it?

 

[F4Jock]

Maybe because it would be a waste of money? Just to 'prove' to a few folks that will then find a fault with the test.

I think the money would be better spent, keeping the towers at smaller airports open.

True but depending on the definition of "smaller" some of these, like some post offices, should have been closed long ago.

 

[George B]

If I may hazard a guess it's probably because most "rational" people consider it fruitless. Do that and experience indicates you'll only get more denials and equivocation. You've thus wasted a bundle of money and proven???? In that vein may I ask if you've ever come across a "true believer" who has had their mind changed? But you raise an interesting point about NIST, National Geographic and Mythbusters. Have you suggested it?

I bet it would cost way, way less than the WTC 1, 2 & 7 computer simulations. . . . heck special effects on a good SyFy flick would cost more. . . .

No I have not suggest it to anyone except here. .

 

[George B]

Maybe because it would be a waste of money? Just to 'prove' to a few folks that will then find a fault with the test.

I think the money would be better spent, keeping the towers at smaller airports open.

Or determining the sexual display behaviors of wild turkeys. . . .

 

[Agav8r]

This is good . . .however, landing an aircraft at slow speeds is not the same thing as hitting a 120 plus foot wide target at 500 mph, 1,000 feet above ground level . . . some have said it is easier . . . I don't have evidence of that fact . . .

George, one reason that landing is harder is because that is when the aircraft controls are loosest. The idea is to land at the sweet spot where you still have control, but the aircraft is about done flying. Flying at a lower speed, such as landing, requires much more aggressive control inputs than at cruise speed to maintain desired attitudes, whereas at higher speeds the airplane is "gripping" the air more. This might be a little bit apples and oranges, but precision flight at high speed is pretty much my job description. I am maintaining a swath width of plus or minus 12 inches (if doing it correctly, which I usually do) for over a half mile or more at a time while traveling at 140 mph only 10 feet off the deck. Granted, this is not 500+ mph, and is well within the operating envelope of the airplane. But, by comparison, if I were to attempt the same thing while flying at 70 mph, I would have a tremendous amount of difficulty at the very least. This is one of the reasons that runways are much wider than the width of the landing gear. I am much more relaxed 10 feet of the ground at 140 mph than I am while landing at 65 mph, indicating to me, at least, that flying at high speed is easier than landing at lower speed. Higher speed = greater control.

 

[George B]

George, one reason that landing is harder is because that is when the aircraft controls are loosest. The idea is to land at the sweet spot where you still have control, but the aircraft is about done flying. Flying at a lower speed, such as landing, requires much more aggressive control inputs than at cruise speed to maintain desired attitudes, whereas at higher speeds the airplane is "gripping" the air more. This might be a little bit apples and oranges, but precision flight at high speed is pretty much my job description. I am maintaining a swath width of plus or minus 12 inches (if doing it correctly, which I usually do) for over a half mile or more at a time while traveling at 140 mph only 10 feet off the deck. Granted, this is not 500+ mph, and is well within the operating envelope of the airplane. But, by comparison, if I were to attempt the same thing while flying at 70 mph, I would have a tremendous amount of difficulty at the very least. This is one of the reasons that runways are much wider than the width of the landing gear. I am much more relaxed 10 feet of the ground at 140 mph than I am while landing at 65 mph, indicating to me, at least, that flying at high speed is easier than landing at lower speed. Higher speed = greater control.

I get your points . . . they make perfect sense tor a Cessna 172 but one has to extrapolate to a massively heavy aircraft at 500 mph . . . from my intuitive side I don't think they necessarily equate . . . I have been told they don't and I have been told they do . . . how do I form my conclusions . . . I am still searching for the necessary data, evidence, testimony, demonstration to sway me from my present position to the opposite position . . . I am still not there . . .

 

[Agav8r]

If it is so easy to do. . . why doesn't someone show up those stupid Truthers and especially those misleading and dilusional experienced pilots by a simple demonstration. . . .? You wouldn't even have to use a 757 or 767. . . heck use an old 747, etc. . .fly it at 500 mph at 2,000 feet to give a little more margin for safety between light beams, lasers or two tethered weather balloons 200 feet apart. . . .I would think NIST, National Geographic or Mythbusters would gain an enormous audience of people wanting to see that demonstrated once and for all ??

In lieu of that for the time being, I have a hypothetical for You, George. Think about it carefully, and give the most genuinely honest answer that you can. You have indicated in other posts that aside from some T-38 sim time and a flight or two in a cub, you are otherwise 0 time. That being the case, here is your scenario. Two aircraft, a 767 and a Cessna 172 are both established in stable cruise flight at 5000 feet. Clear weather, sufficient fuel. You are going to be magically placed alone into the left seat of your choice of either aircraft, but you have different tasks for each. If you choose the 767, you must fly it in a figure 8 pattern. You will not be held to any performance standard, so ascend or descend as you like, you can turn as slowly or aggressively as you feel comfortable with. You must do this for 20 minutes, then you will be removed from the airplane the same way you were placed in it. Your other option, is to land the Cessna. No talking to anyone by radio, it's been disabled. Once placed in the Cessna, the only way for you to get out is to get it to the ground. The purpose of this mental exercise is to honestly ask yourself which you truly believe to be easier, steering a 767 or landing a Cessna. You don't even need to answer me, just wanted you to think about the concept Yourself.

 

[Agav8r]

I get your points . . . they make perfect sense tor a Cessna 172 but one has to extrapolate to a massively heavy aircraft at 500 mph . . . from my intuitive side I don't think they necessarily equate . . . I have been told they don't and I have been told they do . . . how do I form my conclusions . . . I am still searching for the necessary data, evidence, testimony, demonstration to sway me from my present position to the opposite position . . . I am still not there . . .

George, is your main point of contention that the aircraft in question were reportedly outside of their normal flight speed envelope? If so, that's fair, but I am just wondering if there is more to it than just that. In other words, if the top speed were reduced to 350 mph for all aircraft involved, but everything else were the same (as far as the 4 9/11 hijack flights were concerned) would you still question the ability of the 4 flights to have happened as reported?

 

[Agav8r]

I have always understood that Landing was the really hard part of a flight. That is when more things can go wrong, and little things can be disastrous. That be biased, because my hubby crashed a small plane when he was soloing---he survived without major injuries.

You're not biased. There is not an honest pilot that will disagree with You. Combat operations notwithstanding, but F4Jock could speak to that better than I.

 

[George B]

In lieu of that for the time being, I have a hypothetical for You, George. Think about it carefully, and give the most genuinely honest answer that you can. You have indicated in other posts that aside from some T-38 sim time and a flight or two in a cub, you are otherwise 0 time. That being the case, here is your scenario. Two aircraft, a 767 and a Cessna 172 are both established in stable cruise flight at 5000 feet. Clear weather, sufficient fuel. You are going to be magically placed alone into the left seat of your choice of either aircraft, but you have different tasks for each. If you choose the 767, you must fly it in a figure 8 pattern. You will not be held to any performance standard, so ascend or descend as you like, you can turn as slowly or aggressively as you feel comfortable with. You must do this for 20 minutes, then you will be removed from the airplane the same way you were placed in it. Your other option, is to land the Cessna. No talking to anyone by radio, it's been disabled. Once placed in the Cessna, the only way for you to get out is to get it to the ground. The purpose of this mental exercise is to honestly ask yourself which you truly believe to be easier, steering a 767 or landing a Cessna. You don't even need to answer me, just wanted you to think about the concept Yourself.

That would be rather easy . . . One would do the 8's . . . the 8's require the lowest risk of death . . . this is not a consideration in the 911 case . . . I have no way of knowing if flying into a 200 foot wide target at 500 mph is easier or harder than landing the 767 . . . however, without autopilot I would imagine landing may be more difficult but I don't have confidence the hijackers could have landed the aircraft either . . .

 

[George B]

George, is your main point of contention that the aircraft in question were reportedly outside of their normal flight speed envelope? If so, that's fair, but I am just wondering if there is more to it than just that. In other words, if the top speed were reduced to 350 mph for all aircraft involved, but everything else were the same (as far as the 4 9/11 hijack flights were concerned) would you still question the ability of the 4 flights to have happened as reported?

I have been lead to believe speed is the biggest question mark along with the inexperience of the hijackers with the airframe . . . the effect of speed is involved with factors such as ground effect, Dutch roll, air density, engine maximum sustainable speeds at ground level, control surface stability, control reversal and so forth . . .

 

[Agav8r]

That would be rather easy . . . One would do the 8's . . . the 8's require the lowest risk of death . . . this is not a consideration in the 911 case . . . I have no way of knowing if flying into a 200 foot wide target at 500 mph is easier or harder than landing the 767 . . . however, without autopilot I would imagine landing may be more difficult but I don't have confidence the hijackers could have landed the aircraft either . . .

That's fine, my point was simply this: If you would be more comfortable choosing the 767, without ever having flown one, because it represented the least chance of death, doesn't it stand to reason that the hijackers that held commercial certificates, and could fly and land a Cessna, would be able to steer a 767? Leaving out the argument of hitting the targets for now, that's fine, just trying to establish that the 4 hijack pilots were at least qualified to assume control of the aircraft. And I think it has been reasonably established that the hijackers had no intention of safely landing their aircraft. I like the idea of a Mythbusters type of experiment also. As long as it was privately funded, I wouldn't want to spend taxpayer dollars on it. But would that really answer the question either? There would still be the question of the speed of UA 175, and that cannot be proven in a real world aircraft without endangering lives. Certainly flying that far outside the envelope was dangerous, but safety wasn't a priority for them. Seems getting a definitive answer that will satisfy everyone is going to be elusive. You can hypothetically get a 767 up to that speed by remote control, but that removes the factor or a novice pilot steering into a target at speed. You can have a novice pilot steering through a mockup target, but the top speed will need to be lowered for safety. Of course computer simulations will probably never be definitive to everyone either.

 

[Agav8r]

I have been lead to believe speed is the biggest question mark along with the inexperience of the hijackers with the airframe . . . the effect of speed is involved with factors such as ground effect, Dutch roll, air density, engine maximum sustainable speeds at ground level, control surface stability, control reversal and so forth . . .

Fair questions, all around. I can tell You from what I know (take that for what it's worth to you) that dutch roll is probably not going to be an issue, and that air density and ground effect are largely non factors. Every time I go to work I am in ground effect, we have a good relationship. I have seen the questions regarding the engine outputs and air density, and I think it is best that those are answered by someone with more knowledge than myself.

 

[George B]

That's fine, my point was simply this: If you would be more comfortable choosing the 767, without ever having flown one, because it represented the least chance of death, doesn't it stand to reason that the hijackers that held commercial certificates, and could fly and land a Cessna, would be able to steer a 767? Leaving out the argument of hitting the targets for now, that's fine, just trying to establish that the 4 hijack pilots were at least qualified to assume control of the aircraft. And I think it has been reasonably established that the hijackers had no intention of safely landing their aircraft. I like the idea of a Mythbusters type of experiment also. As long as it was privately funded, I wouldn't want to spend taxpayer dollars on it. But would that really answer the question either? There would still be the question of the speed of UA 175, and that cannot be proven in a real world aircraft without endangering lives. Certainly flying that far outside the envelope was dangerous, but safety wasn't a priority for them. Seems getting a definitive answer that will satisfy everyone is going to be elusive. You can hypothetically get a 767 up to that speed by remote control, but that removes the factor or a novice pilot steering into a target at speed. You can have a novice pilot steering through a mockup target, but the top speed will need to be lowered for safety. Of course computer simulations will probably never be definitive to everyone either.

I would would like to see any passenger aircraft flying at its maximum speed at any altitude hit a 200 foot wide target 4 out of 5 times. . .

 

[Rico]

George, you should really just go ahead and post that poll on a professional pilot forum and see data comes about it. Or simply ask on one of those forums for people's opinions, which should largely negate biases coming from the 'debunkers' here and other conspiracy theorists. Whether or not you come across as a conspiracy theorist or not, it doesn't matter, since the important thing is really the opinions of others to sate one's desire for knowledge.

You have to by now realize that an actual test here is not rationally feasible (and who would want to do it?), and that it seems readily apparent that no amount of explaining from the pilots and members of this forum will sate that knowledge for you. So, just go out there and do it. It's the next rational step.

 

[George B]

George, you should really just go ahead and post that poll on a professional pilot forum and see data comes about it. Or simply ask on one of those forums for people's opinions, which should largely negate biases coming from the 'debunkers' here and other conspiracy theorists. Whether or not you come across as a conspiracy theorist or not, it doesn't matter, since the important thing is really the opinions of others to sate one's desire for knowledge.

You have to by now realize that an actual test here is not rationally feasible (and who would want to do it?), and that it seems readily apparent that no amount of explaining from the pilots and members of this forum will sate that knowledge for you. So, just go out there and do it. It's the next rational step.

I thought we would have had the Poll done by now . . . but life happened . . .
Post #569 this Thread . . .https://www.metabunk.org/posts/35180

 

[F4Jock]

I thought we would have had the Poll done by now . . . but life happened . . .
Post #569 this Thread . . .https://www.metabunk.org/posts/35180

PREDICTION: The poll results will convince George of nothing more or less than e already believes.

 

[TWCobra]

George, that 250 below 10000' caption on that graph is purely an ATC limit and should be removed. I have personally flown 767s at 350 knots below 10000' on many occasions. (Not in the US though!)

 

[George B]

George, that 250 below 10000' caption on that graph is purely an ATC limit and should be removed. I have personally flown 767s at 350 knots below 10000' on many occasions. (Not in the US though!)

It was from a Boeing publication . . . I included it as a reference point on the far end of the chart . . . it was understood by me as a recommendation not a control or structural issue . . .


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/part91.html

Sec. 91.117 Aircraft speed.